Obama makes history

Originally posted by wittywonka
I disagree. I do not think that gay people simply "want people accepting what they wish to do with their genitals." The desire to be treated with dignity encompasses a great deal more than that. The desire not to be beaten, abused, discriminated against, and mocked by other people in society encompasses a great deal more than that.

But you are calling such people "gay". What does "gay" mean exactly? Are you not defining them ONLY by thier sexual orientation? Clearly, the battle here is to influence people into accepting such sexual behavoir.

Originally posted by whodey
But you are calling such people "gay". What does "gay" mean exactly? Are you not defining them ONLY by thier sexual orientation? Clearly, the battle here is to influence people into accepting such sexual behavoir.

I think the whole point of the gay rights movement is to have society see homosexuals as complete, whole, dignified individuals, not just as pairs of identical genitalia.

Originally posted by whodey
But you are calling such people "gay". What does "gay" mean exactly? Are you not defining them ONLY by thier sexual orientation? Clearly, the battle here is to influence people into accepting such sexual behavoir.

What does "not accepting" such sexual behavior look like?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What does "not accepting" such sexual behavior look like?

It would appear, in whodey's case, to involve him wanting the discrimination to continue.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I think the whole point of the gay rights movement is to have society see homosexuals as complete, whole, dignified individuals, not just as pairs of identical genitalia.

Personally, I view it as less than optimal, but hey, that's just me. I would compare it to someone born with a physical defect of some sort. Would I treat them without dignity for their "defect"? No, of course, some might as I have witnessed such treatment in the past. Of course, when it comes to mental and sexual defects, the person in question, unfortunatly, is further stimitized. So I guess the answer for most is to convince society that they are complete and whole by allowing them to marry.

Originally posted by whodey
Marriage IS about sex. If it were not for sex, people would not seek to get married, unless you are an illegal I suppose. 😛

So having established that its all about sex, what types other types of sex is the president into? So far we have gay and heterosexual sex, monogomous of course. Now we should see if he is into the group thing.

Fantasizing are we?

Originally posted by whodey
But you are calling such people "gay". What does "gay" mean exactly? Are you not defining them ONLY by thier sexual orientation? Clearly, the battle here is to influence people into accepting such sexual behavoir.

I suppose that's true. Or at least accepting that it's none of our business when we aren't personally involved.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Sure.
You ask me for sources for damn near everything I post.
Things that are common knowledge and all over the TV,newspapers and internet.

So go ahead and give me a source for how you can have a "marriage" with never having sex with your spouse.

I don't have a source, but I believe that there are people who can't have sex because of injury or other causes. Do the laws prohibit them from marriage? Do you have a source for that?

Originally posted by utherpendragon

How is marriage about sex? You don't need one to have the other. PsychoPawn

Source ?

Well, I googled "requirements for marriage license." This is what came up. No mention that you have to have sex to acquire the license.

http://florida.usmarriagelaws.com/

Originally posted by whodey
But in today's society many married people never have children. So why to they get government perks? If children are what you are concerned about, then give the parents, if you can find them, perks.

Personally, I think that if you take the government perks away from marriage by taking governemnt out of marriage altogether, then all you will be left with ...[text shortened]... ng the divorce revolving door in society which by itself has helped destroy society in general.

I'm all for that actually. But it's not just the perks, it's rules of probate, hospital visitation rights, etc. So I'm all for any couple being able to register their contract with each other. They don't even have to have sex.

Maybe even a marriage between heterosexual men. All sex is with other people, and they don't have to discuss the colors of kitchen curtains.

Originally posted by whodey
You are correct. Gays want people to accept them. In other words, they want people accepting what they wish to do with their genitals. Again, its all about endorsing sexual unions, and has nothing to do with accepting them for who they are otherwise.

It has nothing to do with adoption for instance?

Originally posted by whodey
So I guess the answer for most is to convince society that they are complete and whole by allowing them to marry.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but regardless let me clarify that I most certainly do not view homosexuality as a "defect." So, at the very least, I think your analogy is inadequate.

This quote, however, is where I find myself agreeing with you, currently. I see the gay marriage movement as the central means by which the gay community expresses its frustration with a society that often treats it without dignity or respect. I'm not sure I fully embrace the means of the movement, but I certainly do embrace the end. And when it comes down to it, if parts of society are really so bigoted (as in, for example, passing a state constitutional marriage amendment to solidify a law already firmly secure on the books) that no other means would achieve the gay community's end, then I'll support the means, anyway.

Originally posted by wittywonka
My main problem with whodey specifically was that he was essentially equating marriage and sex so that he can suggest that Obama is "into" gay sex - when Obama said nothing about sex at all.

I understand, and I don't blame you for calling him out.

The institution of marriage has historically been an oppressive relationship in some cases wh -ranging significance for society the way that the institution of "marriage" now does.

But I have recently come to wonder--will society move to a point where marriage no longer has any real meaning? It's fine to ascribe personal intent, or meaning, to a relationship between two (or more people) perhaps living together, perhaps of different genders, and perhaps having sex, and perhaps raising children. But an expression that loose and watered-down no longer seems to bear any symbolic, wide-ranging significance for society the way that the institution of "marriage" now does.

What do you think would happen if marriage didn't have any real meaning? What does marriage really mean outside of the civil rights that it gives you?

The right to be at your spouse's bedside in the hospital. That's a right conferred by the state due to you being married.

I don't think allowing gay people to marry would water down marriage at all - it would simply allow more to participate in the institution. I don't think that would make heterosexual marriages any less special or meaningful.

Also, what if marriage evolved to become meaningless in itself? Is that necessarily bad? Human relationships would still form and there would still be many who would choose to be monogamous even without marriage. I don't think that evolution would be necessarily bad or good - it would just be a change in our social dynamic that would be a result to our societal changes.

I don't have the study right now on hand, but they looked at marriage rates in countries that had gay marriage legalized and heterosexual marriages increased in at least some of the countries looked at - so allowing gay marriage may just strengthen the institution instead of weaken it.

Originally posted by whodey
The institution of marriage in times past traditionally gave women power within a society in which they had no power otherwise. So in reality, it helped give women power at one time, not the other way round.

Although marriage is not just about sex, to exclude it is absurd. It is understood that when two people get married, that sex is part of the equatio wo thumbs up. You get governemnt perks if you marry. However, everyone else can get bent. 😕

So in reality, it helped give women power at one time, not the other way round.

Maybe in some cases, but definitely not in all.

It is understood that when two people get married, that sex is part of the equation even though I'm sure there have been rare examples otherwise. Any other conclusion is disingenuous.

I don't deny that, but sex is not the definition of marriage or vice versa. If sex is the number one reason that you are married then your marriage likely isn't a very strong one.

Although the left insists that government should get out of the bedroom, what they really want is for them to endorse what goes on inside the bedroom. So if you are straight and gay and monogomous, two thumbs up. You get governemnt perks if you marry. However, everyone else can get bent. 😕

You haven't hit the nail on the head at all. The government allowing same sex marriage has nothing to do with endorsing sex - it has to do with putting gay relationships on an equal legal status. What happens in gay people's bedroom is already legal.

There is an argument that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage and I think there are legitimate arguments for that - but that would still legalize gay marriage since the government would then not be able to prevent gay people from marrying.

Allowing gay marriage is endorsing gay relationships and gay sex only in the way that it is saying that those relationships are valid and deserve to be on equal legal standing. That isn't increasing government control - it's reducing it.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Fantasizing are we?

ONLY in a petri dish. 😛